RE: Speaking of New Features
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:47:21 -0400
Well, the suggested syntax below would make matching up a long column list to the provided values/variables a lot easier and would likely help prevent listing 100 columns to be inserted but only including 99 variables in the values list. I think I would require the use of the correct column name instead of any type of positional col-n style labeling.
- Mark D Powell --
Phone (313) 592-5148
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Jared Still
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:04 PM To: chet.justice_at_gmail.com Cc: oracle-l Subject: Re: Speaking of New Features Very Perlish. I like it. :) Jared Still Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:37 PM, chet justice
Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?
INSERT INTO my_table ( id => seq.nexval, create_date => SYSDATE, update_date => SYSDATE, col1 => 'A', col2 => 'SOMETHING', col3 => 'SOMETHING', col4 => 'SOMETHING', col5 => 'SOMETHING', col6 => 'SOMETHING', col7 => 'SOMETHING', col8 => 'SOMETHING', col9 => 'SOMETHING', col10 => 'SOMETHING', col11 => 'SOMETHING', col12 => 'SOMETHING', col13 => 'SOMETHING', col14 => 'SOMETHING' ); Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make humanreadable) someone else's code. I would either get too many values or not enough. After copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named notation?
Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix here
<https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/94278-position-insert-syntax> if you are
inclined to, one way or another, to vote.
-- chet justice www.oraclenerd.comReceived on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 12:47:21 CDT